个人信息处理中禁止捆绑规则的相对化构造

The Relative Construction of Bundling Prohibition Rules in Personal Information Processing

我国个人信息保护法第16条确立了个人信息处理中的禁止捆绑规则,该条文义倾向于绝对禁止的立场,但应对该条及相关规定予以相对化构造,从而推进数字经济健康、有序发展。其评价基础为信息自决与营业自由的互动,主要适用范围是合同场景下对个人信息的商业化利用,但处理行为构成履行合同义务的必然技术要求除外。相对禁止捆绑规则应采取具体要件而非概括考量的规范模式,其构成要件包含两部分内容:一是存在将同意与产品或者服务相捆绑的事实,二是不属于不应被禁止的例外。而例外性构成要件又包括两种具体下位情形:信息主体无需同意即可从同一个或者不同经营者处以可期待方式获得具有同等功能之替代性给付,或者能够以支付合理价款作为替代方式从特定经营者处获取同一种给付。基于依民法典第153条第1款确立的解释框架,即可在现行法上构造完整的相对禁止捆绑规则,其要义为“无例外不捆绑,同意违反即无效”,而信息处理者的市场力量、产品或者服务的性质等考量因素则居于辅助地位或者发挥具体化功能。据此,“某读书App案”的裁判结论得以证立,其裁判理由也得以完善。

Article 16 of China's Personal Information Protection Law establishes the rule of bundling prohibition in personal information processing.The literal meaning of this article favors the absolute prohibition stance.Therefore,a relative construction should be applied to this article and related legislations to promote the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy.Its evaluation is based on the interaction of information self-determination and freedom of establishment,and its main scope of application is the commercial use of personal information in contractual scenarios,except where the act of processing constitutes a necessary technical requirement for the performance of contractual obligations.Relative bundling prohibition rules should adopt a normative model based on specific requirements rather than general considerations.The constitutive elements include two parts:first,the fact of bundling consent with products or services,and second,exclusions from what should not be prohibited.The exceptions include two specific subordinate situations:the information subject can obtain alternative payments in an expected manner without consent from the same or different operators with equivalent functionality,or can obtain the same payment from a specific operator as an alternative by paying a reasonable price.Based on the interpretative framework established by Paragraph 1,Article 153 of the Civil Code,a complete relative bundling prohibition rule can be constructed,whose essence is "no bundling without exceptions,consent to violation renders it invalid".Accordingly,the conclusion of the judgment in the case of "a reading app" can be justified,and the reasoning of the judgment can also be improved.